[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 09:00 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>On 20-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> > This is hindsight speaking. None of this was clear when IANA solicited or
> > received the applications. This only explains why the applications were 
> not
> > processed. It *DOES NOT* invalidate the application submission process, 
> nor
> > does it invalidate the applications.
>It most certainly does.   The submission process was under an 
>unsanctioned, and
>not authorized process.  Just because the applicants believed the process was
>valid (and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here) doesn't mean that the
>applications should have any standing in any future process.

Two things are important in this discussion. Reality and an accurate record 
of history.

I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the 
historical facts:

In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid 
out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the 
results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for 
some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process to 
establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs 
(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD 
applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at IANA 
(I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.

And here we are.

As Harald has correctly pointed out, these applications may or may not be 
granted. The point is that in order to grant or deny an application, it has 
to be processed first. One thing is certain, the applications cannot be 


This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html